NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there a nation that comes close to true Libertarianism? I was curious, and just thought I'd ask...

Au revoir,
Danny

Describe the characteristics of "true Libertarianism."

No country has came particularly close to libertarianism but if I was to pick one I would say the parts of Spain which were under the anarcho-syndicalists during the civil war.

http://www.acton.org/blog/index.html?serendipity%5Baction%5D=search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=czech

This is a brief article about the President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus and a link to a speech he made. If he acts as libertarian as he talks, the Czech Republic could become the most libertarian nation of earth.

The Republic of Minerva.

Spain came close during the Civil War (1936-39).

*this is me NOT in a mood to debate ad infinium Libertarianism*

Well if I had to say one... I'd say the US under the Articles of Confederation. Miniscule government, no federal taxes, massive state's rights, no anti-gun laws, a lot of small competing enterprises with little/no regulation, no welfare/SSecurity/Unemployment/Minimum wage, etc. etc. etc. If I understand Libertarian/Classic Liberal thought, that should be as close to their paradise as we've seen.

Of course it proved so unusable we had to draft the Constitution. :p

I kid, I kid. Peace to you all... even the Libertarians :p

*this is me NOT in a mood to debate ad infinium Libertarianism*

Well if I had to say one... I'd say the US under the Articles of Confederation. Miniscule government, no federal taxes, massive state's rights, no anti-gun laws, a lot of small competing enterprises with little/no regulation, no welfare/SSecurity/Unemployment/Minimum wage, etc. etc. etc. If I understand Libertarian/Classic Liberal thought, that should be as close to their paradise as we've seen.

Of course it proved so unusable we had to draft the Constitution. :p

I kid, I kid. Peace to you all... even the Libertarians :p

The constitution was pretty libertarian too, though. In fact, I would have thought that the United States in the first few decades after the constitution was one of the most libertarian nations the world has ever seen. I don't know much about the Spanish Civil War, but I think I'll look into it. (I'm not trying to debate you, by the way, I'm just commenting)

Somalia currently.
No government at all. The only law is the law of the gun.

The constitution was pretty libertarian too, though. In fact, I would have thought that the United States in the first few decades after the constitution was one of the most libertarian nations the world has ever seen. I don't know much about the Spanish Civil War, but I think I'll look into it. (I'm not trying to debate you, by the way, I'm just commenting)

No problem. I just don't want some Libertarian to show up and call me out for dissing Libertarianism, leading to a big debate that ends up going nowhere fast for a while.

Yea.. the Constitution was quite libertarian as well, but it *did* leave enough stuff either entirely open or open to interpretation that we were able to do a bunch of non-libertarian things with it.

I don't think the Spanish during the Spanish Civil War were so much libertarian as they were small-scale anarcho-communist. So they probably shouldn't be included.

I don't think the Spanish during the Spanish Civil War were so much libertarian as they were small-scale anarcho-communist. So they probably shouldn't be included.

"True Libertarianism". ;)

The Spanish Revolution was Libertarian in the classical/European = Anarchist sense, but not in the modern/American = Capitalistic sense, I think.

No government at all. The only law is the law of the gun.

But that is true even when there is a government, isn't it? All law enforcement, after all, necessarily comes down to an act of coercive force. "Government" is just a euphemism we invent when the chaotic gun-toting mob happens to share our ideology. :)

Somalia currently.
No government at all. The only law is the law of the gun.

Umm, wouldn't that be anarchy?

No, that'd be chaos.

Umm, wouldn't that be anarchy?
That's a point of view. Or you can call that chaos. I choose to call that libertarian because it suits my propaganda against the capitalist-libertarians (I don't call them just libertarians because there is the world 'liberty' in libertarian, which goes against my propagandish agenda).

http://www.acton.org/blog/index.html?serendipity%5Baction%5D=search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=czech

This is a brief article about the President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus and a link to a speech he made. If he acts as libertarian as he talks, the Czech Republic could become the most libertarian nation of earth.

The thing you don't know, though, is that day after day he's getting an enormous flak for his attitudes from Czech 1) parliament, 2) senate, 3) government and 4) media. The problem of visionaries is that the acknowledgment of their work comes long after they're gone...

go to his website (www.klaus.cz) and read more.

I will try to choose my words carefully, I think maybe I can agree on some economic, political ideas with libertarians, my concern with the USA Libertarian Party is its foreign policy and its sane defence of drug use laws, to quote reverse 2000 libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne.

Whom I seemed to like, I thought he came across inteligent, and carismatic but his insane defence of drug laws turned me off and the Libertarian Partys foreign policy views caused me concern.

I have no opinion on Michael Badnarik either way.

I think Harry Browne's tv add before 9-11 happend and this has nothing to do with that, showing Harry Browne blowing up the department of the IRS was a classic to prove his point.

There have been governments throughout time that have come close to something a libertarian would be able to tolerate: medieval Iceland, the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution (except for the parts about slavery), and the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are practically libertarian manifestos.

And the liber- prefix in libertarian is completely appropriate. Libertarians support absolute freedom - they don't cherrypick.

Example: "Whatever two consenting adults do in their own bedroom is their business, but how dare you object to the government forcibly taxing you without your consent! You bastard!" - or - "The government needs to stay out of my wallet, but I'll be damned if we legalize drugs."

A few governments came close, but none made it. They had a poor time convincing society that they don't need government, thus fostering vigilantes and warlords in its place. However, one society I think is closest, and while it is not a true country, it will do: Hong Kong. The laws are basic and easy to follow, and you need one form to open a business, and it takes only a few hours to fill it out and get it approved. It takes more forms and two weeks in the US.

...I thought [Harry Browne] came across inteligent, and carismatic but his insane defence of drug laws turned me off and the Libertarian Partys foreign policy views caused me concern.


What was his "insane defence of drug laws?" As far as I know, the United States Libertarian Party has never defended drug laws:

"The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world.
...
Repeal all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs. Repeal laws that infringe upon individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property as protected by the Fourth Amendment. Stop the use of "anti-crime" measures such as profiling or civil asset forfeiture that reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions. Stop prosecuting accused non-violent drug offenders, and pardon those previously convicted."
-- Current (May 2004) National Libertarian Party Platform ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#warondru )

This is what the same platform says about foreign policy:

"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration."
-- Current (May 2004) National Libertarian Party Platform ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#iv )

Well the Paris Commune sorta declared itself a nation and had an anarcho-syndicalist structure, probably the closest you're gonna get to an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian-capitalist/libertarian(american) nation. For a brief period arround the revolution in Russia there were "incidents" a little closer but they were structured on a post-national premise. As for Spain, in the 1970s post-Franco there were also experiments in Anarcho-syndicalism, but not on a national level.

I think that the Netherlands and New Zealand are be the most libertarian nations.

No country has came particularly close to libertarianism but if I was to pick one I would say the parts of Spain which were under the anarcho-syndicalists during the civil war.
I don't think he meant that type of libertarianism.

The constitution was pretty libertarian too, though. In fact, I would have thought that the United States in the first few decades after the constitution was one of the most libertarian nations the world has ever seen.
Perhaps, but back then, religion was a very powerful force on people. So they didn't really live in a libertarian society. Also, they had slavery.

I'd have to say Switzerland from what I know about it.

"True Libertarianism". ;)

:D

I don't think he meant that type of libertarianism.

Probably not, but libertarian or anarchist communism are the only types of "libertarianism" which I consider to be genuinely libertarian. This is because capitalism is impossible without some sort of repressive state which protects the property of those who have gained it by exploiting others.

People see libertarianism as the society of freedom. But really, it doesn't mean shit. It just mean a society at your image. Gay people think freedom is about gay marriage. Muslim people think it is about having several wifes. Christians think it is about the freedom of religion. Rich ones think it is about spending your money the way you like, and poor ones believe libertarianism is about the freedom of class, smokers think it is about smoking pot, hunters think it is about having your gun and even children at school believe libertarianism is about choosing to go to school or not. In french, the translation, 'libertaire' is mostly used to talk about someone who is open about sex (that's how french people define freedom).
At the end of the day, you can call yourself libertarian no matter your political views and then you can play the card of liberty and freedom in the propaganda of your party quite easily and impressively, and provided the target people have the same culture, they'll really like that kind of freedom your party is offering.

Umm, wouldn't that be anarchy?

You say tomato, I say tomahto... :p

(Actually, I don't say tomahto. But the point is still valid. ;) )

People see libertarianism as the society of freedom. But really, it doesn't mean shit. It just mean a society at your image. Gay people think freedom is about gay marriage. Muslim people think it is about having several wifes. Christians think it is about the freedom of religion. Rich ones think it is about spending your money the way you like, and poor ones believe libertarianism is about the freedom of class, smokers think it is about smoking pot, hunters think it is about having your gun and even children at school believe libertarianism is about choosing to go to school or not. In french, the translation, 'libertaire' is mostly used to talk about someone who is open about sex (that's how french people define freedom).
At the end of the day, you can call yourself libertarian no matter your political views and then you can play the card of liberty and freedom in the propaganda of your party quite easily and impressively, and provided the target people have the same culture, they'll really like that kind of freedom your party is offering.Interesting but I reject it. Liberty may be construed in such a manner, but to consider oneself a libertarian one must be dedicated to the concept that freedom itself is more important than how that freedom is used. At the extremes of the political scales, those who tend to term themselves libertarians, this is pretty well understood.

Your point about the confusion of these views may have some bearing upon the completely ridiculous results many political tests give for me, they use words like "should" and "good" and "beneficial" in a manner which asks me to input a value judgement and then assigns to me the belief that my values become my basis for regulation. Thus, while I believe that no one should have an abortion, I do not believe in a law which prevents anyone from ever having one. As a libertarian, I have long recognized that my preference does not equate with an imperative, once having recognized that I am free to allow moral reasoning to procede to its conclusion without stopping where I believe the law should stop.

I reject your assertation that libertarianism is meaningless, I refute with myself.

Interesting but I reject it. Liberty may be construed in such a manner, but to consider oneself a libertarian one must be dedicated to the concept that freedom itself is more important than how that freedom is used. At the extremes of the political scales, those who tend to term themselves libertarians, this is pretty well understood.

Your point about the confusion of these views may have some bearing upon the completely ridiculous results many political tests give for me, they use words like "should" and "good" and "beneficial" in a manner which asks me to input a value judgement and then assigns to me the belief that my values become my basis for regulation. Thus, while I believe that no one should have an abortion, I do not believe in a law which prevents anyone from ever having one. As a libertarian, I have long recognized that my preference does not equate with an imperative, once having recognized that I am free to allow moral reasoning to procede to its conclusion without stopping where I believe the law should stop.

I reject your assertation that libertarianism is meaningless, I refute with myself.
To some, living is a freedom. The freedom of the children is more important than the freedom of the mother to kill according to them. It depends on your point of view.
Freedom is about allowing people to do what they want. Everybody want different things and they all call it freedom when they can do what they want. A dictator is free (not necessaily happy, but free by definition) and those who want the same thing as the dictator are free as well, may he dictate that you can kill, or may he dictate that you can live, but he can't dictate that you can kill and that your victim can live.